Citation Nr: 0405714
Decision Date: 03/03/04 Archive Date: 03/11/04
DOCKET NO. 02-02 856 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in
Albuquerque, New Mexico
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Helen E. Costas, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from October 1964 to October
1968.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a July 2000 rating decision of the
Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
REMAND
The veteran contends that he has PTSD due to his service in
Vietnam. He claimed various Vietnam service stressors, which
have not been verified. The United States Services Center
for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR) should be contacted
for the purpose of verifying the veteran's alleged service
stressors. Additionally, the veteran should be scheduled for
a VA examination for the purpose of determining whether he
currently has PTSD due to a service stressor. The veteran
should also be afforded the opportunity to submit medical
evidence that he currently has PTSD. Such evidence should
include all VA and private psychiatric treatment records
including those from the VAMC in Albuquerque, from Dr. Leo
Kruz and complete records from Dr. Kleinsasser.
With respect to the veteran's claimed service stressors, the
Board notes that the USASCRUR stated in June 2002 that in
order for them to provide further research concerning
specific combat incidents and casualties, the veteran had to
provide additional information. It was reported that the
information should include the most specific date possible,
type and location of the incident, full names of casualties,
unit designations to the squadron level and other units
involved. The veteran should be contacted and given an
opportunity to submit this type of information.
Lastly, the Board notes that in May 2003, the RO mailed the
veteran a VCAA letter. The letter, however, fails to satisfy
the VCAA notice requirements as it pertains to the veteran's
claim of service connection for PTSD. In this regard, the
letter did not explain what evidence was necessary to
substantiate a claim of service connection for PTSD. The
criteria to substantiate a claim of service connection for
PTSD are different from a general claim of service
connection. The veteran must therefore be given an
appropriate VCAA letter pertaining to the claim of service
connection for PTSD.
In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for
the following:
1. With respect to the claim of service
connection for PTSD, the RO should send
the veteran and his representative a
letter explaining the VCAA, to include
the duty to assist and notice provisions
contained therein. Among other things,
the letter should explain, what, if any,
information (medical or lay evidence) not
previously provided to the Secretary is
necessary to substantiate the claim of
service connection for PTSD. The letter
should also specifically inform the
veteran and his representative of which
portion of the evidence is to be provided
by the veteran and which part, if any,
the RO will attempt to obtain on his
behalf. The letter should also inform
the veteran that he may submit any
pertinent evidence in support of his
claim.
2. The RO should ask the veteran to
identify, by name, address, and
approximate (beginning and ending) dates,
all health care providers who have
treated him for PTSD, since his discharge
from active military service in 1968 to
the present date. The RO should also
obtain records, including those from Dr.
Kruz and Dr. Kleinsasser, from each
health care provider the veteran
identifies.
3. The RO should contact the veteran and
give him an opportunity to submit
detailed information regarding each of
his claimed service stressors. This
information should include the date of
the event, location of the incident, full
names of casualties, unit designations to
the squadron level and information
pertaining to any other units involved.
4. The RO should contact the United
States Armed Services Center for Research
of Unit Records (USASCRUR) and inform
them that the veteran was in Vietnam from
November 1966 to November 1967 and was
with 20 Helicopter Sq. (PACAF), Nha Trang
AB, RV. Ask them to provide any
available information which might
corroborate the veteran's alleged in-
service stressors. If the veteran
submits additional information regarding
his service stressors, it should be
forwarded to USASCRUR. The summary of
the alleged stressors is as follows:
(A) The report that during his
first night in Vietnam, in November
1966, they underwent an enemy attack
(i.e. sustaining incoming mortars)
that resulted in the death of an
airman.
(B) The report of being attacked by
the enemy (i.e. receiving incoming
fire) while retrieving shot down
helicopters.
(C) The report that the veteran
participated in temporary duty
missions in Udorn, Thailand, which
required that he leave his
identification behind.
(D) The report of undergoing enemy
attacks (i.e. receiving incoming
fire) while rigging a crashed
helicopter in Cambodia for pick up,
the veteran's helicopter sustained
numerous hits.
(E) The report that he saw bodies
being loaded onto aircrafts.
(F) The report that he saw a man
shot down in the streets because it
was past curfew hours.
If referral to USASCRUR, or other
pertinent sources is to no avail, the RO
should advise the veteran to submit
alternate forms of evidence to support
his claim of service connection for PTSD
in compliance with the notification
requirements in Dixon v. Derwinski, 3
Vet. App. 261, 263-64 (1992). All
attempts to obtain records should be
documented in the claims folder.
5. If USASCRUR verifies any of the
veteran's stressors, the RO should
schedule the veteran for a VA psychiatric
examination. Based on examination
findings, historical records, and medical
principles, the physician should give a
medical opinion, with full rationale, as
to whether the veteran currently has PTSD
under DSM IV due to verified service
stressors. If the examiner notes the
presence of any coexistent psychiatric
disability, an opinion should be provided
as to whether such psychiatric disability
is causally related to service.
6. After completion of the foregoing,
and after undertaking any further
development deemed warranted by the
record (and keeping in mind the dictates
of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of
2000), the RO should again review this
claim. The RO must provide adequate
reasons and bases for its determinations,
addressing all issues and concerns that
were noted in this REMAND.
7. If the disposition of the claim
remains unfavorable, the RO should
furnish the veteran and his
representative a supplemental statement
of the case and afford them the
opportunity to respond.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to
the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369
(1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory
Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual,
M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious
handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board
and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.43 and 38.02.
_________________________________________________
K. OSBORNE
Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003).